In the philosophy of science, in epistemology, a model is a powerful tool; it is a partial representation of a system that can be used to explain and predict phenomena. In chemistry, one of the most powerful models used extensively are skeletal structures, which represent molecules and the atoms and bonds within those molecules. Typically, only molecules which contain covalent bonds are represented using skeletal structures. Each molecule can be named uniquely following the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) convention — IUPAC is an international federation of fifty-five organizations from different nations designed to standardize names, symbols, weights, and measurements within chemistry. The construction of these molecules can be accomplished by following a set of rules. Once constructed, these models contain a large amount of information about the atoms and molecule: hybridization, bond angle, number of bonds between atoms, types of bonds, reactivity, elements present, polarity, relative melting/boiling point, intermolecular forces, acidity/basicity, the potential for resonance, physical properties, geometry/shape, formal charges, number of valence electrons. Other similar models include Lewis Structures, Newman projections, Haworth projections, and Fischer projections, each serving their useful purpose. Models are not without their limitations, as no model can perfectly represent reality. Usually, a model is created to fit a need, to fit an explanation of a phenomenon. But, I do not wish to discuss the information hidden within skeletal structures, rather the names associated with the models of molecules, which possibly will reveal further meaning behind such symbols.
To give credit to one individual for the development of such a model would be absurd. Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, Gilbert N Lewis, August Kekulé, J.J. Thompson, Ernst Rutherford, Linus Pauling, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac, Sir John Edward Lennard-Jones, Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and many others all played a role in developing both the formalization and information that exists in this model. Attributing such a feat to one person diminishes the countless others who do not get their names in modern chemistry textbooks, such as Jabir ibn Hayyan. This model is an accumulation of evidence and human thought over the generations. Given the role humans played in developing this model, could other meaning be engrained in skeletal structures?
Did you know Linus Pauling was an advocate for eugenics? I was surprised to find out that the person who helped develop our current understanding of the chemical bond supported such a malicious agenda. In 1959, Pauling believed that the human genome was deteriorating. Due to medical advancements, he believed that “defective genes” were not being removed from the collective human genome and that we “have developed feelings of compassion such as to make it possible for us to permit the individuals who carry the bad genes to have more progeny than in the past” (Pauling, 1959). Pauling wrote that people who possess genes which cause sickle cell anemia should have a tattoo placed on their forehead with the purpose of preventing that gene from being passed on to future generations. Pauling also wrote about artificial selection in the context of artificial insemination and expressed that more thought is needed on the question about the selection of donors to improve desirable characteristics in the human race (Pauling, 1968). Pauling justifies his perspective by claiming such actions are necessary to decreasing human suffering. Pauling’s writings can be described as horrific, it is all too easy to spot the oppression supported by western science. For more information about Nobel Prize laureates connected to eugenics, see here.
Are oppressive ideas baked into science models, such as the skeletal structures? If a model is based upon experimental evidence, upon the observations and measurements that are made, then I hesitate to say no. However, experimental results are interpreted, meaning is given to what we observe. Other scientific models have certainly been used to support racists ideas, such as evolution. Some pseudoscientific models were developed to support racist agendas, such as Phrenology. Given the fact that most scientists in the past that developed major scientific models still used to this day were white males, one must wonder if any beliefs that reflect their worldview entered their work.
I believe they have. The meaning given to what we experience must be related to our prior knowledge about the world, which in turn is affected by our context, the society we grew up in, the ideal our parents had, etc. This is not to say that all scientific models are racist, oppressive, wrong, or un-useful, but to highlight the human component in scientific inquiry. We must engage in critical reflection, especially to those in positions of power. We must reflect on our beliefs, what we use to justify them, and how those beliefs affect other people.
An existentialist in crisis,
JLS
References
Pauling, L. (1959). Molecular disease. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 29(4), 684–687. APA PsycArticles®. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1959.tb00238.x
Pauling, L. (1968). Reflections on the New Biology: Foreword. UCLA Law Review, 15(2), 267–272. HeinOnline.